Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

hobie

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Theology is never developed with translations. Pastors, theologians, etc. all know biblical Hebrew and koine Greek very well. My Lutheran pastor never uses ANY translation - for teaching Bible Class or in preaching. He has his Hebrew and his Greek texts. And he can translate them as quickly as he could read the English. NO theologian, Bible scholar.... NO scholarly debate on doctrine, happens from a translation.
 

hobie

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Theology is never developed with translations. Pastors, theologians, etc. all know biblical Hebrew and koine Greek very well. My Lutheran pastor never uses ANY translation - for teaching Bible Class or in preaching. He has his Hebrew and his Greek texts. And he can translate them as quickly as he could read the English. NO theologian, Bible scholar.... NO scholarly debate on doctrine, happens from a translation.


I came across a few verses that have been taken out or partially deleted in new versions which are interesting...

Matthew 18:11 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Luke 9:56 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Acts 8:37 New Versions take out "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

I John 5:7-8 New Versions take out "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,"

I wonder why they took the verses out as these are just a few, seems to be a pattern....
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Theology is never developed with translations. Pastors, theologians, etc. all know biblical Hebrew and koine Greek very well. My Lutheran pastor never uses ANY translation - for teaching Bible Class or in preaching. He has his Hebrew and his Greek texts. And he can translate them as quickly as he could read the English. NO theologian, Bible scholar.... NO scholarly debate on doctrine, happens from a translation.

This is true of all the Lutheran Pastors I've ever known. It's not true of some of the modern denominations where they feel that they only need to be led by the Holy Spirit in order to preach and that's sad indeed because then you get someone reading scripture and not understanding the original language and history behind the verses.
 

hobie

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
This is true of all the Lutheran Pastors I've ever known. It's not true of some of the modern denominations where they feel that they only need to be led by the Holy Spirit in order to preach and that's sad indeed because then you get someone reading scripture and not understanding the original language and history behind the verses.

Very true, but its the regular members that its meant to confuse, and you can see the misconceptions and wrong ideas that go from there.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Very true, but its the regular members that its meant to confuse, and you can see the misconceptions and wrong ideas that go from there.

Are you implying that there is some conspiracy theory amongst modern bible translators to purposely confuse people?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

The EARLIEST manuscripts do not include the phrase “in the flesh” which was likely a later addition. The MEDIEVAL manuscripts that were available to the KJV translators included the phrase “in the flesh”. Each group of translators was faithful in translating the “original” texts that they had available. Do you advocate that the NIV translators should have added words to scripture that they KNEW FOR CERTAIN were not in the original writings of John?

(How careless of the Apostle John to leave out the “whole point” of the verse from his letter so that a later scribe would have to insert it.)
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
74
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I came across a few verses that have been taken out or partially deleted in new versions which are interesting...

Matthew 18:11 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Luke 9:56 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Acts 8:37 New Versions take out "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

I John 5:7-8 New Versions take out "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,"

I wonder why they took the verses out as these are just a few, seems to be a pattern....

The pattern is that the later manuscripts from one textual family tended to add things to the text. So as translations start to be based on earlier manuscripts, they tend to become shorter. On the other hand, the additions didn't make up new doctrines, so there's nothing affected.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Are you implying that there is some conspiracy theory amongst modern bible translators to purposely confuse people?


Maybe "The New World Translation." Maybe.

But I know of no generally accepted doctrine ("cults" exempted) that is founded on a translation. Scholars, theologians, etc. always go to the Hebrew and Greek. It's why all pastors study such at length before they can enter seminary and certainly to graduate. Any proponent of some "teaching" who points to some TRANSLATION would be fully dismissed by me.
 

hobie

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Read the ideas of Holt and Wescott and look at the Gnosticism that comes with the Alexandrian text they used. I have limited connection as traveling for a few weeks, so will post when I can.
 

hobie

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Here is a good explanation on Hort and Westcott I came across:

"Westcott, an Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University,and Hort – also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge
– came to participate on the 1881 Revision Committee of the King James Bible under the guise of being Protestant scholars. Actually, they were very Roman Catholic in doctrine, belief, and practice. Both conservative and liberal branches of Christendom hold Westcott and Hort in high esteem as if God had greatly used these men to reestablish and restore the text of the Bible. However, it is most difficult to believe that God would use two men to perform such a task who did not believe that the Bible was the verbal Word of God.

Westcott and Hort maintained that they had raised New Testament textual criticism to the level of an exact science. Thus when they
concluded that the Traditional Text was late and a composite reading resulting from combining older text-types, they affirmed that this should be regarded as the true explanation with the same degree of reliance as one would esteem a Newtonian theorem.1 Indeed, they asserted that their work had been so scientifically and carefully executed that there could never be more than one change per thousand words.2 Nevertheless, today most liberal (or lost) modern scholars say that they no longer agree completely with the Westcott-Hort theory. Kurt Aland, a foremost leader of the modern school, is representative when he admits to this in saying:3

"We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our
conception of different recensions and text-types although this
conception has lost its raison d' être, or, it needs at least to be
newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the
documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research
which were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the
end of Westcott and Hort's conception."

Still, these same liberals always begin their own investigations with the acceptance of most of the basic W-H tenants. Sadly, most conservative scholars have accepted the W-H theory of textual history – largely because most Christian scholars fear scholastic and intellectual ridicule...." http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...Is_The_Bible_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_PhD_ThD.pdf

And more on the Alexandrian manucripts:
"Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and best” manuscripts. The oldest claim has been disproved elsewhere. This document will focus on the nature of these two favored manuscripts. Sinaiticus has been recently made available to all on the internet by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, with the mainstream media and general Christians fawning over this “world’s oldest Bible.” This manuscript, in conjunction with Codex Vaticanus, form the basis for most modern Bible translations. However, these two manuscripts differ substantially from the text of the bulk of the manuscripts. Thus, the public needs to know the truth about these manuscripts.

Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.”1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.

Vaticanus is the sole property of the Vatican; it has been a part of the Vatican library since at least 1475. It’s history previous is unknown. It was written by three scribes, and has been corrected by at least two more3. Vaticanus adds to the Old Testament the apocryphal books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Dean Burgon describes the poor workmanship of Vaticanus:

Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.4

The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”5 Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses.6 Sinaiticus also lacks these verses, but has a blank space for them.7 These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses!

The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine’s is no exception. From the monastery’s website:

When Egeria visited the Sinai around the year 380, she wrote approvingly of the way the monks read to her the scriptural accounts concerning the various events that had taken place there. Thus we can speak of manuscripts at Sinai in the fourth century. It is written of Saint John Climacus that, while living as a hermit, he spent much time in prayer and in the copying of books. This is evidence of manuscript production at Sinai in the sixth century. The library at the Holy Monastery of Sinai is thus the inheritor of texts and of traditions that date to the earliest years of a monastic presence in the Sinai. In earlier times, manuscripts were kept in three different places: in the north wall of the monastery, in the vicinity of the church, and in a central location where the texts were accessible.8

This monastery has a library full of old manuscripts. One would then assume that Tischendorf found the prized Sinaiticus one a library shelf, hidden among other manuscripts. Well, this is not exactly the case. He found it in a trash can, waiting to be burnt!"...https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/
 
Last edited:

hobie

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
And on the Gnosticism in these versions from the Dean Burgon site:
"Gnosticism, in all of its varieties, was the most influential heresy faced by the early Church. Not only did the Gnostic corrupt many readings found in the New Testament, but offered their own writings as inspired scriptures, such as the The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of The Twelve, The Gospel According To The Hebrews (also called The Gospel According To Matthew, not to be confused with the real Gospel of Matthew), The Gospel According to the Egyptians, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John, etc. Gnosticism had a variety of forms and sects, which broadened its base and growth. Historian Will Durant calls Gnosticism "the quest of godlike knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means" (The Story Of Civilization Vol. III, p. 604). Durant is correct. Gnosticism is thinly veiled Pantheism. Pantheism is the doctrine that identifies God with and in the whole universe, every particle, tree, table, animal, and person being are part of GOD. Or, to explain it in a very basic way, the Greek word pan = all. The Greek word theos = God). Therefore it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".

The Gnostics taught that the physical (material) is evil and the spiritual (non-material) is good. Thus, a good god (spiritual) could not have created a physical world, because good can not create evil (that is the spiritual would not create the physical). So the Gnostic god created a being (or a line of beings called aeons) removing himself from direct creation. One of these aeons, or gods, created the world. The so-called Christian Gnostics believed that Jesus was one of these aeons who created the world. Some Gnostic taught that Jesus did not have a physical body. When he walked on the earth, he left not footprints because he never really touched the earth (he being spiritual and the world physical). Others taught that only our spiritual bodies were important, so the physical body could engage in whatever acts they desired because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught that the physical body was so evil that it must be denied in order for the spiritual body to gain salvation, thus shunning marriage and certain foods ().

The influence of Gnosticism can be seen in some of the heresies of today. For example, many of the teachings stated above are found, in revised form, in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To the Jehovah's Witness, Jesus is a created god, not God manifest in the flesh. It is no wonder that the Watchtower's New World Translation changes "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 and replaces it with "He was made manifest in flesh." In the TR Greek which underlies our King James Bible reads it reads yeov (theos) (God) <2316> efanerwyh (Ephanerothe) (was manifested/revealed) <5319> (5681) en (in) <1722> sarki (sarki) (the flesh) <4561>. However, the Greek text which underlines the NWT has made a change, so it is natural for the Jehovah Witnesses to choose the reading which reflects their false doctrine. What is interesting is that the NIV, NASB, ESV, and perhaps others says "He" instead of "God," thus following part of the Gnostic corruption. Why, because the NWT, NASB, NIV and, ESV have as their base the corrupt Alexandrian text."

http://deanburgonsociety.org/Versions/gnosticism.htm
 

hobie

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
And here is a good overview on the "these are the oldest thus best" idea:

"The oldest representatives of the "purely" Alexandrian group of texts are the two "great" uncials, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B, respectively). Both of these manuscripts date to the 4th century, with Vaticanus proffered as from the latter quarter of the century, and Sinaiticus being from around the middle of the century. Several scholars have even suggested that these uncials are two of the original 50 copies of the New Testament text which were made by Eusebius for official Church use at the behest of Emperor Constantine.5 Thus, the oldest pure Alexandrian manuscripts date to around 350 AD and after, nearly three centuries after the penning of the original autographs. The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.6 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."7 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large, "Origen's treatment of Matt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet his conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of a local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could not effectively alter that text. "This brings us to the second significant point - his date.

From the early third century onward the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes in the text of whom we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not."8 Thus, even by the 3rd century, and definitely by the fourth, the Scriptures were more thoroughly distributed and Christians were better able to compare texts and reject heretical manuscripts. Once the faithfulness in transmission for the texts had solidified, the issue then becomes one of competing textual lines, between which Christians of that age had to choose. This is where the age of the Alexandrian exemplars actually works to the detriment of modern theories based upon antiquity.

What needs to be understood about the ancient manuscripts is that there were basically two types of media for texts - vellum and papyrus. Neither of these media are especially durable. Vellum (dried skins of sheep or other animals) was more rugged and expensive, and was used in the copies of the Scriptures held for "official" use by the churches, and by more wealthy individuals. Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are vellum manuscripts, and as such, were probably intended for use in Christian assemblies or liturgy. However, vellum scrolls will wear out over time through use and need to be replaced (just as a well-used Bible today will tend to do). Back in the day, they did not have rebinding services like we have for Bibles to give added years to the life of a scroll, so the scroll had to be transcribed into a new manuscript....

The obvious point to all this, then, is: "why are such old exemplars even still in existence and in the relatively good condition which they are, since they are over fifteen centuries old?" The answer suggested by numerous scholars such as Van Bruggen, Pickering, and others is that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because they were never used... " http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/GnosticCorruptions.pdf
 

hjhsjnsshdjdh

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Messages
20
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

Yes, I have been seeing many different versions of Scripture that use different words and make the meaning sound completely different than the AKJV
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
74
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
A lot of this information seems dated. Since Wescott and Hort worked, additional manuscripts have been added to the collection used. One particularly valuable set is papyrii, some of them older than what W & H used. But also translations into various languages, quotations in church fathers, really just quite a wide variety of things. New generations of scholars have had a chance to review the original judgements. In many cases W & H's conclusions held up. In some they didn't. But we no longer depend on just two manuscripts, nor upon W & H's opinions.
 

hobie

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
A lot of this information seems dated. Since Wescott and Hort worked, additional manuscripts have been added to the collection used. One particularly valuable set is papyrii, some of them older than what W & H used. But also translations into various languages, quotations in church fathers, really just quite a wide variety of things. New generations of scholars have had a chance to review the original judgements. In many cases W & H's conclusions held up. In some they didn't. But we no longer depend on just two manuscripts, nor upon W & H's opinions.

If you look they are all based on W & H with minor variations, but its still the same deletions and changes from the Alexandrian manuscripts. "The Critical Text was the one chiefly used for the English Revised Version and the later American Standard Version. Today, the updated and revised Critical Text is the Greek manuscript basis for the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, and virtually every other modern English translation of the Bible."..https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-text.html
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Translations are never used for the formation and evaluation of doctrines. Theologians (even parish pastors) use the original Hebrew and Greek. Translations are provided for laity ... always with the warning that translations are not normative (for the very simple reason that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a translation to be fully accurate).
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
74
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Translations are never used for the formation and evaluation of doctrines. Theologians (even parish pastors) use the original Hebrew and Greek. Translations are provided for laity ... always with the warning that translations are not normative (for the very simple reason that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a translation to be fully accurate).

I agree, though it's a bit more complicated than one might realize from this statement. Almost no parish ministers or even theologians are qualified to make independent judgements based on the original languages. In fact even translators and commentators use journal articles and monographs on specific words, grammatical constructs, and passages. I would guess that most pastors and theologians don't read that literature very much, but depend upon commentaries. They are, of course, commentaries on the original language text. So de facto the major commentaries sort of play the same role for serious theology that translations do for most Christians.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I agree, though it's a bit more complicated than one might realize from this statement. Almost no parish ministers or even theologians are qualified to make independent judgements based on the original languages. In fact even translators and commentators use journal articles and monographs on specific words, grammatical constructs, and passages. I would guess that most pastors and theologians don't read that literature very much, but depend upon commentaries. They are, of course, commentaries on the original language text. So de facto the major commentaries sort of play the same role for serious theology that translations do for most Christians.
Problem is that commentaries will carry that particular denominational slant on scripture
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
74
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Problem is that commentaries will carry that particular denominational slant on scripture

The ones I read aren’t denominational, and they also summarize the major alternatives on each passage. They express a view, but I don’t always accept it. I don’t know what else you can do. Translations are also based on a view of the passage. They just don’t explain it. They also don’t give the historical context you need to understand how the intended readers would understand it.
 
Top Bottom